Leviticus 10 and possible priestly power struggles - HTS Teologiese ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page 4 of 7 Original Research clean and unclean. Verses 9 and 10 of Leviticus 10 are similar, with the former providing the command to be sober and the latter commanding Aaron to distinguish בדל)‏ Hif) 13 between holy and profane, and clean and unclean. For Nihan the main difference is that there is a causal 14 relationship between these two verses which is clearly absent from Ezekiel 44. The priests are to be sober in order to distinguish (v. 10) and teach (in v. 11). For Nihan (2007:592) this ‘betrays an on-going reflection on the basic categories of priestly thinking, in this case the nature of holiness and its opposition to altered states of consciousness’ and in that sense Leviticus 10 goes beyond Ezekiel 44. Nihan’s (2007:592–593) second argument has to do with verse 11 and the fact that Aaron is now commanded to teach (again Hif) to all of Israel the decrees which Yahweh conveyed ירה to them through Moses. This goes beyond Ezekiel 44:24, where priests are only asked to keep ‏(ׁשמר)‏ the laws. Yet for Nihan this teaching does not only entail cultic matters, but ‘the Torah in general’ and in that sense Leviticus 10 goes well beyond Ezekiel 44. 15 Nihan’s (2007:598–602) interpretation of Leviticus 10:16–20 is also important for our discussion. This pericope was not discussed in Achenbach’s engagement with the text. The text presents an argument between Moses and Aaron about the interpretation of the law, an argument which Aaron apparently wins. This pericope goes back to what happened in Leviticus 9 and even further to a discrepancy between Leviticus 6:23 and 6:19. For Nihan (2007) the problem is once again that the priests have seemingly not obeyed the law: We thus return to the very issue with which the story of ch. 10 opened, the righteousness of the Aaronides; the parallel is enhanced by the fact, noted above, that Moses accuses not Aaron himself but his remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar. (p. 599) The Aaronides are thus under threat again. Moses investigates and finds that they have not acted in accordance ‏(דרש)‏ with Leviticus 6:19 and as he had commanded. Yet Aaron responds with an answer which is not that clear, but the end result is that Moses acknowledges that Aaron is correct. For Nihan (2007:601–602) we have a dispute here between Moses and Aaron about interpreting the laws, one which is clearly won by Aaron. Aaron is transformed into a teacher 13.Liss (2008:348) argues that the act of separation here becomes an act of imitating God. This was what God did in the Priestly creation narrative and now priests are asked to follow suit. It is tempting to argue along with Nihan above, that this is another example of Leviticus 10 going beyond Ezekiel 44 by portraying the vocation of the priests in much stronger terms; they are after all imitating God himself now, something which one does not find in Ezekiel 44. Unfortunately for this argument, the stem בדל)‏ Hif) is found in Ezekiel 22:26, in which the priests are criticised for not distinguishing between impure and pure. 14.See the discussion by Jürgens (2001:289) and how the infinitivus constructus is used here at the start of both verses 10 and 11. 15.Nihan (2007:593–595) argues for the more general meaning of torah in the light of the usage of חק ֹ in Leviticus 10:11. The term is very uncommon in ‘priestly’ portions of the Pentateuch and probably refers to Leviticus 26:46. By referring to texts such as Deuteronomy 24:8, Ezekiel 22:26, Zephaniah 3:4 and Haggai 2:11, Nihan argues that traditionally priestly roles were defined in a rather narrow cultic sense of needing to determine what is clean and what is unclean. Leviticus 10:11 extends the role of priests to teachers of the Torah in general. of the law as already proclaimed by YHWH in verse 11. 16 In conclusion, Nihan (2007:602–605) interprets Leviticus 10 as the ‘Founding Legend of Priestly Exegesis’. In this chapter Moses acts as an exegete of the law (vv. 12–15), but is then surpassed in the next pericope by Aaron, who interprets the laws better than Moses does. The question is thus whether Aaron and the Aaronides really end up in a worse position after the Nadab and Abihu incident as Achenbach would have us believe? Aaron loses a lot, but also seems to gain some more. For the first time in the Sinai narrative YHWH addresses him directly with a very potent command. Furthermore, Aaron wins an exegetical argument with Moses. This last pericope was unfortunately totally ignored by Achenbach. Otto In a fairly extensive critical response to Nihan’s work Otto (2009b:107–142) 17 offers a fair amount of criticism in which he supports Achenbach’s original conclusions. The following insights are the most important. Otto (2009b:117) agrees with Nihan and Achenbach that Leviticus 10 was produced by a ‘postpentateuchredaktionelle theokratische Bear beitung’, but he is not impressed with Nihan’s understanding of Leviticus 10 as a ‘late literary unity’. 18 For Otto (2009b:117–118) one could argue that 10:1–7 and 16–20 are late (post-P), but the connection with 10:8–11 is superficial. Furthermore, Otto believes that 10:12–15 is older and should be read along with verses 8–11 as well as with Leviticus 9 which is about the ordination of the Aaronides. For Otto (2009b) verses 1–7 and 16–20 were added later by a theocratic redaction of the Zadokites with the following purpose: Der theokratischen Bearbeitung der Zadokiden, die die Pentateuchredaktion voraussetzt, geht es mit der Rahmung von Lev 10, 8–15 durch Lev 10, 1–7.16–20 darum, die dort in Nachtrag zu Lev 8–9 unterstrichene Autorität der Aaroniden auf die Zadokiden umzulenken, die nun eine Auslegungskompetenz in Kultfragen unabhängig von der des Mose erhalten. (pp. 118–119) In Otto’s view, the Zadokites edited this chapter so that the authority of the Aaronides could be channelled in their direction. What he means by this is that the Zadokites traced their ancestry via Eleazar, and although Chapter 10 as a whole seems pro-Aaronide, it is actually attempting to be pro-Zadokite. In other words, since Nadab and Abihu as the ‘original’ Aaronides handled things ineptly, Eleazar and Ithamar had to save the day – and the Zadokites are descendants of Eleazar. Whatever positive images of the Aaronides one thus sees in Leviticus 10 have all been coopted in favour of the Zadokites. These arguments are thus also thoroughly genealogical in nature. Thus, as we saw 16.See also similar conclusions reached by Watts (2007:97–129). 17.Otto’s chapter was originally published in 2008 in Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14, 366–407 under the same title of Das Buch Levitikus zwischen Priesterschrift und Pentateuch. The article is about Nihan’s entire book and only about 5 pages (pp. 117–121) are directly applicable to our debate. 18.For a shorter English discussion of Nihan’s work, see Otto (2009a:135–156). http://www.hts.org.za doi:10.4102/hts.v69i1.1990
Page 5 of 7 Original Research earlier, Achenbach argued this by means of the genealogy in Exodus 6:14–25. 19 In later texts the Zadokites are presented as descendants of Eleazar. 20 One problem with the genealogical argument, which is also applicable to what Achenbach was saying, is the fact that the only texts which explicitly trace Zadok via the Eleazar/Phinehas line are from 1 Chronicles. Without these texts one could not have imagined any link between Zadok and Aaron. Otto is just reading backwards from later texts into earlier texts when he argues for undercover Zadokites in Leviticus 10. In short, this is a fascinating argument by Otto, but it seems a bit speculative. It also means that Otto apparently agrees with Nihan that the final form of the chapter reflects positively on whichever priestly group is behind the chapter. For Nihan it is the Aaronides and for Otto the Zadokites, although the latter in a way sneaked in under the cover of darkness. This might be seen as being in tension with the interpretation of Achenbach, but Achenbach focused more on the first half of Chapter 10 and says basically nothing about the second half. It is clear that Otto would agree with this, but this part is aimed at the Aaronides, whereas the second part where Aaron gets a direct word from YHWH and wins an exegetical argument with Moses is more propaganda for the Zadokites. One aspect of this argument is particularly unconvincing. If Eleazar is the forefather of the Zadokites (and 1 Chr would agree with that), the text is still very clear that he also did something wrong. Verses 16–20 are quite adamant that Eleazar and Ithamar also did something wrong. Who saves the day for them? Their father, Aaron! He wins the argument with Moses. How could this text be anti-Aaronide as Otto would want us to believe? Even if added later it still underlines the fact that Aaron was in a better position and his younger sons were alive, because he won an argument with Moses. Discussion At the start of this article I mentioned that one of the questions addressed would be whether one could argue that what happened in Leviticus reflected badly on any specific priestly group. To this question Achenbach and Otto would have answered in the affirmative. For them the narrative reflects badly on the Aaronides. Achenbach thought that it was a critique of the Aaronides, although towards the end he acknowledged that the story could be aimed at any priestly group. Achenbach also focused only on the first half of the text. Otto focused on the second half and saw undercover propaganda for the Zadokites and in that sense the text is anti-Aaronide. Nihan clearly disagrees. Yet it is not as simple as reading texts and deciding on either their final form, or their supposed development that they are for or against a 19.The important verses here are 23, which names the sons of Aaron, and 25, which refers to Eleazar and his son Phinehas. 20.See Otto (2009a:148), who argues that ‘for the Aaronides, according to the narrative of the Pentateuch, an unbroken continuity exists from Aaron as Moses’ brother in Egypt and at Mount Sinai on to Pinhas [sic] (Num 25, 10–12) as the ancestor of the Zadokites (1 Sam 14, 3; 2 Sam 8, 17; 1 Chr 5, 33; 6,37–38; 18, 16).’ These verses from Chronicles are most convincing, since they all portray Zadok as a descendent of Aaron via Eleazar. With regard to 1 Chronicles 5:33 (MT) the next verse should also be added. certain group. One problem with this whole debate is that we really do not know who these groups were in post-exilic Yehud. And for that matter the pre-exilic period might be even vaguer. The Aaronides seem to be present in what has traditionally been called P. 21 As Watts (2007:143) puts it: ‘The Hebrew Bible does not, however, depict Aaronide priests as maintaining such a cultic monopoly, or even holding positions of unequalled prominence, for much of Israel’s history’. Or has Blenkinsopp (1998) has said: Anyone attempting to understand the Judean priesthood in its historical development has to take seriously the fact that, apart from Priestly material (P) and Chronicles, 22 our sources are silent both on Aaronide priests and on Aaron as their priestly eponym. (p. 37) Thus when it comes to the Aaronides our sources are fairly silent. It would be better to talk of the literary Aaronides, who seem to inhabit only texts from the exilic/post-exilic period. If they are then only a post-exilic phenomenon, the question has always been where did they come from? Otto (2003:1648– 1649) has, for instance, proposed that the Aaronides were a reform movement that splintered off the Zadokites in the exilic period. 23 The Aaronides are the authors of what has traditionally been called P. Blenkinsopp (1998:34–39) has argued that the Aaronides should be linked to the cult at Bethel in the exilic period and that their roots go back to the sanctuary in the Northern Kingdom during the pre-exilic period. Others like Grabbe (2003:208), Achenbach (2003:119) and Schaper (2000:269– 279) 24 seem to agree. Still, their pre-exilic roots are not that clear from the descriptions in the Hebrew Bible and our sources are on the whole silent about this time period and the origins of the Aaronides. But then if we move to the Zadokites, things do not look much better. Recently Hunt (2006) 25 has described them as ‘missing’. ‘Zadok first appears’ as Grabbe (2003:206) puts it, ‘without father or mother or genealogy, in 2 Samuel 1:24–36.’ Yet the only place in the Bible where we find reference to the ‘sons of Zadok’ similar to the ‘sons of Aaron’ in Leviticus is obviously in Ezekiel. Still, some scholars 26 would argue that the Zadokites were the ones who actually served as priests in Judah until 586 BCE. One is tempted to say that scholars postulate a power struggle between the Aaronides, 21.In the European redactional school of which Achenbach, Nihan and Otto are all members, things are more complicated than this. In some of these debates one often finds reference to P G , P S and quite a few post-P layers. These are all from priestly circles and we find them in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. 22.See also Otto (2003:1648), who mentions that a problem with the Aaronides is that ‘es keine gesicherten vorexilische Belege gibt.’ 23.See also Otto (2007:180–182) for a further overview. 24.Schaper (2000:276–277) actually offers a much more complicated picture in which three to four groups of priests were eventually unified in the Achaemenid period. He calls one of these groups the ‘Betheler Aaroniden’. 25.Hunt (2006:190) actually comes to the conclusion that the Zadokites did not exist before the Hasmonean period. 26.See, for instance, Otto (2007:180–182), Schaper (2000:270) and Fabry (2004:202). For Otto (2007:180–181) the Zadokites needed to include themselves in the genealogy of Aaron simply because the Davidic kings who gave them their position of privilege were no more. http://www.hts.org.za doi:10.4102/hts.v69i1.1990
Page 1 and 2: Page 1 of 7 Original Research Getti
Page 3: Page 3 of 7 Original Research eine
Page 7: Page 7 of 7 Original Research Jürg

Leviticus 10 and possible priestly power struggles - HTS Teologiese ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?